Title |
National Registry of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Mexico II (RENAPREC II).
|
---|---|
Published in |
Archivos de cardiología de México, May 2016
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.acmx.2016.04.010 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Hermes Ilarraza-Lomelí, Marianna García-Saldivia, Jessica Rojano-Castillo, Samuel Justiniano, Norma Cerón, Zulema-L Aranda-Ayala, Azucena Rodríguez, Alejandro Hernández, María-Elena Cassaigne, Raúl Cantero, Pablo Gasca, Tania Hinojosa, Jesús Alonso, Ricardo Romo, Jorge Lara, Elizabeth Pimentel, Juana Zavala, María-Dolores Rius-Suárez, Gabriel Cherebetiu, Othniel Cortés, Alejandro Almaraz, Pedro Mendoza, Jesús Silva, Enrique Tirado, Leonel Martínez |
Abstract |
The aim of this paper is to compare the state of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs (CRP) in 2009 with 2015. We shall focus on assistance, training of health-providers, research and the implementation barriers. All authors of RENAPREC-2009, and other cardiac rehabilitation leaders in Mexico were requested to participate. These centers were distributed in two groups: RENAPREC-2009 centers that participated in 2015 and the new CRP units. In 2009 there were 14 centers, two of them disappeared and another two did not respond. CRP-units increased 71% (n=24), and their geographic distribution shows a centripetal pattern. The coverage of CRP-units was 0.02 centers per 100,000 inhabitants. Only 4.4% of eligible patients were referred to CRP, with a rate of 10.4 patients/100,000 inhabitants in 2015. The ratio of Clinical Cardiologists to Cardiac Rehabilitation Specialists is 94:1, and the ratio of Intervention Specialists to cardiac rehabilitation experts is 16:1. Cardiac rehabilitation activities and costs varied widely. Patient's dropout rate in phase II was 12%. Several barriers were identified: financial crisis (83%), lack of skilled personnel (67%), deficient equipment (46%), inadequate areas (42%) and a reduced number of operating centers (38%). CRPs in Mexico are still in the process of maturing. Mexican CRP-centers have several strengths like the quality of the education of the professionals and multidisciplinary programs. However, the lack of reference of patients and the heterogeneity of procedures are still their main weaknesses. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 67% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 14 | 27% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
Researcher | 5 | 10% |
Other | 5 | 10% |
Unknown | 8 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 33% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 18% |
Psychology | 4 | 8% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 10% |
Unknown | 13 | 25% |